The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting held April 27, 2016 were reviewed and amended. Commissioner Daly made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Johnson and passed by unanimous vote (5-0). Commissioners Hayman and Kjar abstained as they were not present at this meeting.

Cory Snyder, Community Development Director, reviewed the history of the Rainbow Snow shack that is located on Pages Lane. The applicant desires to re-open this snow shack for the summer season. Since the business license for this use expired in 2014 the applicant is required to apply for a new business license along with a conditional use permit for the temporary use. Mr. Snyder reviewed the site. The applicant has received permission from the property owner to continue this use on the current site. The site meets the applicable development standards and has sufficient services including parking, access, utilities, and power. The applicant is required to secure a permit from the Health Department, a written parking agreement from the property owner, and a restroom use agreement with a local business for employees. The proposed temporary use is allowed May-October. Overall, staff is comfortable with the proposed use and recommends approval.

Cory Petersen, applicant, said he purchased this Rainbow Snow for his son to work. He said parking is not an issue and he will submit the required agreement. He said they have already secured a permit from the Health Department and an agreement with Deseret Industries for restroom use. He said there is adequate power to the site through Rocky Mountain Power which he has already set up in his name. He said the site will remain open from May-October as allowed per the Health Department permit. He said he plans to keep the Rainbow Snow at its current location unless the property is sold, then he would relocate. He provided some history stating that Rainbow Snow shacks started in Salt Lake City in the 1980s. He said they plan to keep the traditional image and flavors.

Chair Hirschi opened the public hearing.

Jennifer Turnblom said this Rainbow Snow has been around since the early 80s. She said it is a fun use and a part of Centerville’s history. She said it would be sad to see this great icon leave and hopes it will remain.

Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Chair Hirchi closed the public hearing.

Commissioner Wright made a motion for the Planning Commission to approve a conditional use permit for a temporary shaved ice stand, located at 199 East Pages Lane, subject to the following conditions.

Conditions:
1. The conditional use permit shall be in effect from the approval date by the Planning Commission and shall expire on October 31, 2016.
2. The placement of the shaved ice stand shall be located and operated, as depicted on the site plan, and as submitted to the Planning Commission.
3. Any temporary signage use shall comply with temporary sign allowances of Chapter 12-54 of the Zoning Ordinance.
4. The structure and site shall be free from unnecessary decorative items such as flags, pennants, or any other temporary items that may blow away from the structure or site.
5. A garbage can shall be provided for workers and customer use and shall be emptied regularly and the area be kept clear from trash and debris.
6. The applicant shall provide additional information and be deemed acceptable to City staff, prior to issuance of any business license, which addresses the following:
• The use of electricity and any connections, which shall be approved by the building official or other applicable entity.
• The provision of restroom facilities for workers and patrons, unless expressly exempted from Davis County Health Regulations.
• Written permission from the property owner allowing use of the on-site parking stalls.
7. The use shall be subject to and comply with the existing adopted City “Noise Ordinance,” which regulates noise between the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.
8. Following the expiration date, the applicant shall have seven (7) days to remove all items from the property and restore the site to its prior condition.

Reasons for the Action (findings):
a. Chapter 12-54 allows for a temporary retail sales use consisting of less than 200 square feet.
b. A temporary use not meeting the permitted use development standards of Section 12-56-050 is required to receive a Conditional Use Permit [Section 12-56-060].
c. The applicant desires to exceed the permitted use time limits, as listed in Section 12-56-050.g.
d. All applicable standards for the Conditional Use Permit have been reviewed and the use is deemed acceptable, subject to the conditions of approval [Section 12-21-100(e)(3)(A-D), Section
12-21-100(e)(5)(A-K)].

The motion was seconded by Commissioner Johnson and passed by unanimous roll-call vote (7-0).

At 7:25 p.m. Commissioner Hirst left the meeting.

PUBLIC HEARING | 347 SUBDIVISION | 347 NORTH 400 EAST - Consider the proposed Small Subdivision Waiver/Flag Lot on property located at 347 North 400 East, for the purpose of creating 2 residential building lots. Chad Morris, Property Owner & Applicant.

Due to ongoing personal interactions with this applicant Commissioner Daly recused himself from this matter.

Brandon Toponce, Assistant Planner, reported the applicant desires to subdivide his property and create two (2) additional lots, one traditional lot and one flag lot. At this time, the applicant is seeking a small subdivision waiver/flag lot approval and then, at a later date, will decide what type of dwelling is desired for the rear lot and what additional approvals may be needed. The proposed rezone is consistent with the General Plan and the Residential-Medium (R-M) Zone. Mr. Toponce reviewed the criteria for a small subdivision waiver and the criteria for a flag lot stating the proposed subdivision complies with both and is appropriate. The proposed flag lot meets the criteria of last resort for development. He reviewed the lot layout, dimensions, and access. All development standards have been satisfied. Mr. Toponce explained the City Engineer is currently reviewing the site for drainage, sewer, and utility needs. The applicant will continue to work with the City Engineer on these items. The applicant will also be required to follow all South Davis Metro Fire standards for the flag-lot stem pole clearance. The Sewer District has approved a shared sewer lateral for this location. In addition, the City Attorney has requested a number of corrections for the final plat.

Chad Morris, applicant, said there is an existing home on the property which will remain. He said the Fire Marshal has approved the stem pole and no turn-around is necessary. He said he has been working with the City for some time trying to come to a good division. He believes this plan will bring some new homes and appropriate development to this area.

Chair Hirschi opened the public hearing.

Lisa Buckmiller said the existing home on this property was built in 1943 and falls within the Centerville Deuel Creek Historic District. She said this historic home could be part of the historic registry and she is happy to hear it won’t be demolished. She said the majority of the homes in this area have larger lots. She is concerned with what could be developed on this property. She hopes it is compatible with the surrounding area. She said she is not a proponent of flag lots. She would like to see some standards created to ensure appropriate compatible development.

Jennifer Turnblom expressed concern with subdividing this property before a conceptual plan is presented. She believes if there is a plan it would be easier to determine its compatibility with the area. She is concerned a large structure will be built which will impose a negative impact on its surroundings.

Linda Martin asked why the applicant is requesting a lot split. She asked what benefit the applicant will gain from this subdivision. She said the neighbors were not aware that this lot was zoned for multi-family and asked when this happened. She said if these lots are developed are there standards on building height. She said a lower profile home would be the most compatible. She said allowing this subdivision will create over-crowding in the area. She expressed concern with drainage. She said this property is the high spot in the neighborhood and all run-off will affect the neighbors. She said the existing home already shares a sewer lateral with her home. She is concerned another shared situation will cause problems. She said she would like all the sewer laterals separated as code dictates. She no longer wants the burden of another home on her system. She was ensured that any new development would require their own sewer lateral.

Margaret Ihrig said she is also concerned with a shared sewer lateral. She is concerned the sewer in this whole area is out dated and believes any new homes added to the line will cause additional problems.

Chuck Madsen said this lot has several trees and open space. As a neighboring property he has enjoyed this open space and landscaping for many years. He is concerned the landscaping will be demolished with development and replaced with an unsightly stem pole driveway. He asked if the property will be fenced or a retaining wall installed on this property line. He is concerned their visual aesthetica will be lost.

Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Chair Hirschi closed the public hearing.

At 7:50 p.m. Commissioner Gina Hirst returned to the meeting.

Chad Morris said he is unsure what trees will remain and which will need to be removed. He hopes many of the trees along the stem pole will remain, but he is unsure. He said the stem pole requires a 20-foot right-of-way. He plans to sell the lots and is unsure what a new property owner may choose to develop. He said a fence may be installed if desired. He understands the desire to maintain aesthetics. He said he has been working with the sewer district who has ensured him that the required sewer lateral is sufficient and virtually indestructible for up to ten (10) homes on the same line. He said the Sewer District actually explained the benefits of more than one home on a line, saying it helps keep a constant flow. He said he has already paid for the upgraded sewer lateral. He explained he has upgraded the existing home with new roof, carpet, bathroom, shutters, etc. He has no intention of demolishing the existing home.

Cory Snyder, Community Development Director, reviewed the zoning history for this area. This property has been zoned R-M for many years. The City considered rezoning this property back to single-family in 2003 as part of a city-side rezoning project, but ultimately was kept as R-M because of existing R-M and public facility uses in the area. He said this lot, under the current zoning, is eligible for three (3) units whether the subdivision is approved or not. The R-M Zone allows multi-family dwellings, including duplexes and triplexes or a single-family home, either option requires a conditional use permit. Mr. Snyder explained the flag-lot option will allow the property owner to sell the lot to another owner making the dwelling an owner occupied residence. He said a multi-family use would require a rental/lease situation forcing the current property owner to keep the dwelling and manage the property.

Mr. Toponce confirmed this site is within the Centerville Deuel Creek Historic District. He said the home is historic and would likely be eligible for the incentive program but reminded the Commission that the Centerville Deuel Creek Historic District program is voluntary. The applicant is not required to maintain this home on a historic register. He also clarified that the City does not have a demolition policy with regard to the Centerville Deuel Creek Historic District. If another owner bought the property and chose to demolish the home, it could be done. Mr. Toponce explained the City Engineer will require a drainage plan that will handle all drainage on site. It is never the intention to have water drain onto another property. He also explained the building height for all homes within the R-M Zone is consistent throughout the city.

Commissioner Johnson questioned if there are any codes that require trees or landscaping standards for a single-family lot. He also asked if the Commission can require a conceptual plan prior to a subdivision. Commissioner Wright said there is a UTA bus stop where the stem pole is proposed. Mr. Snyder said there is no minimum landscaping requirement for trees for a single-family development. The only requirement is a percentage for pervious vs. imperious surface, but no type of landscaping is dictated. He also explained the Commission cannot require a conceptual plan for a subdivision approval. The subdivision approval requires proof of buildable area and development standards, which the applicant has provided. However, any development on the proposed lots will require a conditional use permit, which allows the Commission to assess and mitigate possible negative impacts, not including aesthetics. Mr. Snyder said the bus stop will simply be moved to another location on 400 East.

Commissioner Johnson made a motion to reopen the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Kjar and passed by unanimous roll-call vote (6-0).

Linda Martin said she is surprised and confused why this lot would be allowed three (3) units. She said this lot is too small and too narrow to allow this subdivision. She said this subdivision will overcrowd the lot and the neighborhood. She said any development will eat up all the beautiful nature on this lot which will diminish the neighbor’s quality of life. She said she does not believe a shared sewer line is acceptable and demanded to know how this is possible when code requires independent lines. She said this is frustrating and ridiculous. She said she has a right to an independent line. She said if the trees and landscaping are sacrificed for development then she will lose her privacy and this will create a greater drainage issue. She said all the neighbors are very upset with this subdivision. She said they bought their lots to have large spacious property and this is now being taken away. She expressed concern with parking and the amount of hard surface that will be installed with three dwellings. She said if parking becomes a concern it will push parking onto 400 East.

Conni Madsen expressed concern with parking and circulation. She said it will be difficult for vehicles visiting the flag lot to turn around. She believes the front lot is too small and will not support appropriate development. She said the stem pole will be unsightly. She said neighbors are not in favor of this subdivision, it is too much. She expressed concern with relocation of the bus stop. She said the removal of trees on this site will diminish her privacy. She is also concerned that heavy construction equipment will further damage the site and crack neighboring foundations.

Chuck Madsen said he is concerned with aesthetics. He said if there are no requirements for landscaping this area will be left completely bare. He asked the Commission to require a privacy fence.

Seeing no others wishing to comment, Chair Hirschi closed the public hearing.

Mr. Snyder responded to questions from the Commission. He explained the City does not require landscaping for single-family homes including grass, flowers, or trees. The only requirement the City holds is that weeds need to be kept to a minimum. He said nobody has a right to another person’s landscaping. If a property owner chooses to install or remove landscaping they have that right, a neighbor cannot dictate that right. However, he said, a conditional use permit would allow the Commission to require a privacy screening or buffer if a negative impact is perceived. He reminded the Commission that setbacks and development standards are set to help provide this buffer. He also explained a traffic/parking study could possibly be required as part of a conditional use permit. Mr. Snyder explained density is set using a gross density calculation. He explained the applicant has a right to submit a layout for a subdivision to be considered. It is not the Commission’s position to reconfigure the layout, but rather to verify the proposed layout is appropriate and follows current applicable standards. Mr. Snyder said the City does not have a sewer code. The sewer laterals are reviewed and approved by the South Davis Sewer District. The City follows the Sewer District’s recommendations. Mr. Snyder said sidewalks, curb and gutter are sometimes damaged during construction but are easily replaced. It is not likely a neighbor foundation would be affected.

Mr. Morris said the lot is large enough to accommodate the proposed plan. He said there is room to build a garage for the existing home. He said he anticipates some of the trees will remain and many will be trimmed to accommodate access. He believes this is a great utilization of this lot.

Commissioner Hayman made a motion for the Planning Commission to approve the Small Subdivision Waiver/Flag Lot for the project located at 347 North 400 East, with the following conditions:

Conditions:
1. The applicant shall address with City staff the type of residential development that is desirable on the property and seek a Conditional Use Permit approval by the Planning Commission.
This shall be accomplished prior to any building permit being issued on the site.
2. A plat note shall be added stating: Since the property is zoned Residential-Medium (R-M), any new development within the flag portion of the lot, on Lot 2, shall be required to receive a
Conditional Use Permit or amended by the City
3. The location of all future structures shall be indicated on the site plan with the Conditional Use Permit. All buildings shall be located within the flag portion of Lot 2.
4. All future buildings shall meet the Development Standards for a flag lot within the R-M Zone as found within Section 15-5-102(a) of the Subdivision Ordinance and within Table 12-31-1
of the Zoning Ordinance.
5. All applicable utility provider sheets shall be submitted prior to recording of the subdivision.
6. The following engineering concerns shall be addressed by the applicant prior to recording of the subdivision:
a. Show new 20’ hard surface driveway with cross section.
b. Show water meter size.
c. Provide plan and profile of new 8” diameter drain line including 48” diameter manhole for connection in 300 North Street.
d. Provide detention calculations and detail of inlet box in detention basin with orifice plate and oil/water separator.
e. Provide verification that sewer district will allow connection to existing sewer lateral to adjacent home to the south.
f. The sidewalk on 400 East is in decent shape but there may be some sections that need to be removed and replaced.
7. The need of a fire hydrant shall be reviewed and addressed by the City Engineer and Public Works Director to ensure City Standards have been satisfied.
8. The following fire safety items shall be addressed by the applicant as part of the development and construction process:
a. The following fire lane requirements for this project shall start at 400 East and continue west until it reaches Lot 2 on the northeast corner.
b. This project shall include a 20-foot fire lane with an all-weather driving surface that is able to support a fire apparatus (75,000 pounds).
c. The fire lane shall be clearly marked with approved signs on both sides of the road indicating that no parking is allowed on any portion of the dedicated fire lane.
d. The road length is less than 150 feet from 400 East to Lot 2 on the northeast corner, so there is no need for the developer to provide a turnaround or a hammerhead for fire department
access.
e. These requirements are based on the largest building that may be built on Lot 2, and the setback requirements from Centerville City. If a smaller structure is built on Lot 2, then the
fire lane access may not be required to continue as far down the access road to Lot 2
• Stem/Pole Addressing Area: An area fronting the public street is required to have a permanent address sign or marker. The sign may not be higher than 3 feet and no larger than 12
square feet. It must be visible, yet still meet the standards found in Section 12-55-230, Visual Obstruction Standards.
9. An area fronting the public street shall be required to have a permanent addressing sign or marker. This sign shall not exceed 3 feet in height and be larger than 12 square feet. It shall be
visible, yet still meet the Visual Obstruction Standards as found in Section 12-55-230 of the Zoning Ordinance. This addressing shall be completed prior to the final inspection and
receiving a Certificate of Occupancy.
10. The following items shall be addressed and reviewed by the City Attorney prior to recording of the plat:
a. Correct spelling of “State” in second line of Surveyor’s Certificate.
b. Add street addresses for each lot.
c. Show fire access easement on plat per Fire Department requirements.
d. Add owner’s signature line for Chad S. Morris along with proper acknowledgement for individual.
e. Add owner’s signature line and proper acknowledgment for Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) as beneficiary of Deed of Trust shown on title report or get trust
deed released and provide updated title report.
f. Add plat note: “All coordinates shown are based on Davis County Surveyor’s Office Datum.”
g. Add plat note: “Approval of this subdivision plat by Centerville City does not constitute any representation as to the adequacy of sub-surface soil condition nor the location or depth
of groundwater tables.”
h. Pay off delinquent property taxes in amount of $110.67 and submit revised title report showing cleared.
i. Update date on plat in heading when submit final paper plat or mylar.
j. Submit updated title report current within 30 days when submit final paper plat or mylar.
k. Submit signed Improvements Agreement and bond when submit final paper plat or mylar.
l. Pay development and impact fees when submit final paper plat or mylar.

Reasons for the Action (findings):
1. The applicant has submitted a completed application for a small subdivision waiver/lot split [Section 15-2-107].
2. A small subdivision matches the desired goal for Neighborhood 1, Southeast Centerville and within the Centerville Elementary Area [Section 12-480-2(1)(B)].
3. The property is currently zoned Residential-Medium (R-M) and has met all the applicable preliminary development standards found in Chapter 12-32 of the Zoning Ordinance.
4. The general requirements for all subdivisions appear to have been addressed and fulfilled [Chapter 15-5].
5. The flag lot has met all applicable standards found in Section 15-5-102(9)-(10) of the Subdivision Ordinance.
6. A Conditional Use Permit shall be required for a single-family home on Lot 2, along with any other multi-family, except for a two-family dwelling, which is an approved use [Chapter
12-36 and Chapter 12-12].

CONTINUATION OF DISCUSSION ON CODE TEXT AMENDMENTS FOR SOUTH MAIN STREET CORRIDOR (SMSC) OVERLAY ORDINANCE [CHAPTER 12-48] - [Postponed from April 13, 2016 meeting] - Consider the Code Text Amendments for the South Main Street Corridor (SMSC) Overlay Ordinance, which includes the City Council directives and changes to the South Main Street Corridor (SMSC) Public Space Plan. Centerville City, Applicant.

Chair Hirschi reported on the work session held prior to this meeting with UDOT and Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC). He said he was pleasantly surprised at how accommodating and flexible UDOT representative Darin Fistrup was with regard to the public space plan for the South Main Street Corridor (SMSC). He asked if it would be beneficial, at this point, to include a design specialist. He also asked if the Commission would like to hold a work session with the City Council to discuss further.

Cory Snyder, Community Development Director, said a work session with the City Council is appropriate but suggested the Commission prepare their recommendation and response to the Council’s request prior to a work session. He said a design specialist may not be the best option at this point. He said it is important for the Commission to review the information they have received, hold the required public hearing, and provide their educated recommendation. He reminded the Commission that the Council has specifically asked them to review two (2) public space elements, the removal of planter boxes and the relocation of light poles to the private sector. He said the Commission needs to decide if this request is acceptable, if the request should be modified, or if an alternative should be proposed.

The Commission discussed how relieved they are that UDOT seems to be amenable to the SMSC public space plan and the proposed elements. The Commission discussed how important it is to clearly state why these elements are important to the SMSC plan. Commissioner Wright said she believes the planter boxes, benches, and light poles are fundamental to the SMSC public space plan and to the walkability of the corridor because they provide imageability, human scale and complexity. She said Mr. Fistrup (UDOT) mentioned several times during the work session that UDOT is willing to work with the City. She said both UDOT and WFRC strongly suggested all public space elements remain in the public right-of-way. Commission members agreed forwarding a specific proposal/response to the City Council is best prior to a work session.

Chair Hirschi questioned if the idea for narrowing the travel lanes and striping bike lanes should be sent immediately onto the City Council so UDOT is able to restripe as part of their upcoming routine maintenance. He said if the bike lanes are striped first it may provide the buffer needed to show that the public space plan and elements are protected from traffic. Commission members agreed it makes sense to have UDOT stripe the bike lanes on their budget especially given that bike lanes are already planned for on several planning maps for Main Street including State, County, and City maps.

Mr. Snyder agreed the Commission could recommend bike lanes tonight to expedite this process and then send the remaining recommendations to the City Council following a future Planning Commission meeting. He agreed UDOT was agreeable to the public space plan tonight but reminded the Commission that these elements will not truly be approved or denied until it is time for installation. Mr. Snyder said staff is comfortable preparing a new graphic of the public space plan with the narrowed travel lanes, bike lanes, planter boxes, benches, and light poles as discussed this evening for further review at a future Planning Commission meeting. In addition, staff is comfortable preparing a written recommendation with findings for the Commission to review, edit, and consider at a future meeting.

Commissioner Hayman made a motion to recommend the City Council consider working collaboratively with UDOT in connection with it upcoming maintenance and restriping of Main Street to stripe a five and a half foot (5.5’) shoulder for a bike lane thereby reducing the travel lanes to eleven (11) feet and sparing the City any cost of restriping themselves.

Reasons for the Action (findings):
1. Bike lanes on Main Street are part of Centerville’s Trail Master Plan.
2. Bike lanes on Main Street are supported by the Trails Committee.
3. Main Street is listed as a priority bike route on Wasatch Front Regional Council plans, UDOT plans, Davis County Plans, and Centerville City plans.
4. Bike lanes on Main Street will provide safety for bikers that already use Main Street as a biking corridor.
5. The City could implement bike lanes on Main Street at no cost to the City since UDOT has offered to do this as part of their routine maintenance.
6. This is a timely decision since UDOT plans to restripe Main Street within the next few months.

The motion was seconded by Commissioner Johnson.

Commissioner Hirst said she is in favor of bike lanes but asked if an 11-foot lane could cause slowing of traffic and cause frustration for drivers. Commissioner Kjar agreed but said bikers already use this corridor regularly which is nothing new for drivers.

Chair Hirschi called for a vote on Commissioner Hayman's motion. The motion passed unanimously with a roll-call vote (6-0).